• Welcome to the Live Science Forums, a playground for those curious about humanity and the world around us. Introduce yourself here!

Scientists Found the Deepest Land on Earth Hiding Beneath Antarctica's Ice

Dec 12, 2019
7
1
35
A new mapping effort revealed critical new details of Antarctica's hidden land.

Scientists Found the Deepest Land on Earth Hiding Beneath Antarctica's Ice : Read more
My main issue is with the 200 ft rise figure. If you took the entire land area of 5.5m sq mi, 8200 ft average elevation, down to sea level and spread it over the entire ocean of 140m sq mi it only comes to 145 ft. Sure there's going to be some additional from isostatic rebound but there's going to be sinking globally as well, this isn't even counting the expanding of the ocean's borders with the sea level rise. The isostatic figure shouldn't be included anyway as Canada is still recovering from the last ice age. Aside from some damming effects for land based ice, sea ice is a wash because it's already displacing it's volume in the ocean.
 
Dec 11, 2019
1
1
0
An example of how irrational the current science community can be.

All ice that is currently below the current sea level is irrelevant in determining what happens to the sea level lF IT ALL MELTED.

Why, as solid ice ..... if it is now below sea level, then if it melts it takes up no more room that it presently is ALREADY DISPLACING.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Odin
Dec 14, 2019
3
0
0
An example of how irrational the current science community can be.

All ice that is currently below the current sea level is irrelevant in determining what happens to the sea level lF IT ALL MELTED.

Why, as solid ice ..... if it is now below sea level, then if it melts it takes up no more room that it presently is ALREADY DISPLACING.
An example of how ignorant those outside the science community, who think they actually know anything about science can be.
Ice only displaces it's weight in water when it is FLOATING. So an ice cube melting in a cup of water does not change the level of the water. But an ice cube melting on a table ABSOLUTELY changes the level of the water on the table.
This ice in this instance is not floating, but is sitting on a land mass. When it melts, sea level with rise.

Now you know.
 
Dec 14, 2019
1
0
0
An example of how irrational the current science community can be.

All ice that is currently below the current sea level is irrelevant in determining what happens to the sea level lF IT ALL MELTED.

Why, as solid ice ..... if it is now below sea level, then if it melts it takes up no more room that it presently is ALREADY DISPLACING.

I'm gonna break it down a little for you. A lot of the ice that is in Antarctica is not actually under the water. It sits on top of a massive landmass so it isn't displacing anything currently. Even being below sea level does not actually mean there is water displacement happening, canyons have no water in them for example or very little. (ex. Grand Canyon). So as they stated, if the ice were to melt it would significantly impacts the ocean's water levels due to the majority of ice being on top of land and not sitting floating in water.
 
Dec 12, 2019
7
1
35
I'm gonna break it down a little for you. A lot of the ice that is in Antarctica is not actually under the water. It sits on top of a massive landmass so it isn't displacing anything currently. Even being below sea level does not actually mean there is water displacement happening, canyons have no water in them for example or very little. (ex. Grand Canyon). So as they stated, if the ice were to melt it would significantly impacts the ocean's water levels due to the majority of ice being on top of land and not sitting floating in water.
See map, those canyons are not blocked from the ocean and will fill with water.
 
Dec 12, 2019
7
1
35
An example of how ignorant those outside the science community, who think they actually know anything about science can be.
Ice only displaces it's weight in water when it is FLOATING. So an ice cube melting in a cup of water does not change the level of the water. But an ice cube melting on a table ABSOLUTELY changes the level of the water on the table.
This ice in this instance is not floating, but is sitting on a land mass. When it melts, sea level with rise.

Now you know.
The land it's sitting on is below sea level, that portion of the ice below sea level will occupy 9/10 the volume when melted, claims aren't to total ice volume on sub sea level land.
 
Dec 14, 2019
1
0
10
Umm, let's say that Antarctica was a land mass where all the snow/ice "covering it" was below sea level and it came up to exactly sea level (like some god had taken a big knife and it cut if off there). Now let's say all of that snow/ice melts. Will the the surrounding ocean level rise, fall, or stay the same? Since snow/ice is just frozen water, and solid water is less dense than liquid water (that's why it rises to the surface), it seems to me that the snow/ice that turned into water would take up less room (would be more dense) than the snow/ice. Therefore, the ocean level would go down slightly. It would not be enough to counteract all the snow/ice that is currently covering the land mass of Antarctica if that were all to melt and flow into and thus raise the sea level. But be that as it may, the original poster is kind of correct when he stated:

"All ice that is currently below the current sea level is irrelevant in determining what happens to the sea level lF IT ALL MELTED." <= It isn't totally irrelevant, since the melting of ice below sea level would contribute to lowering sea level

"Why, as solid ice ..... if it is now below sea level, then if it melts it takes up no more room that it presently is ALREADY DISPLACING." <= that is a correct statement, in fact it actually will take up less room

"
An example of how irrational the current science community can be."

I don't know that scientist don't know this. I suspect that good scientists do. So I don't really agree with the posters initial statement, unless it turns out the current science community doesn't realize this...
 
Dec 14, 2019
3
0
0
The land it's sitting on is below sea level, that portion of the ice below sea level will occupy 9/10 the volume when melted, claims aren't to total ice volume on sub sea level land.
Of course the land it is sitting on is below sea level.
You think the scientists aren't aware of that, or of what proportion are above and below the surface?

Dunning, meet Kruger.
 
Dec 12, 2019
7
1
35
"...
All ice that is currently below the current sea level is irrelevant in determining what happens to the sea level lF IT ALL MELTED.

Why, as solid ice ..... if it is now below sea level, then if it melts it takes up no more room that it presently is ALREADY DISPLACING.
"
> talks about ice below sea level
> you go on to argue about floating displacement

The portion below sea level is displacement of sea water regardless if it is floating or not, unless an inland valley that's blocked off from the ocean is being discussed. In such an environment that would turn into a fresh water lake unless there's volcanic activity to dry.
 
Dec 14, 2019
3
0
0
"The OP was not wrong"
The OP was wrong. The amount below the surface does affect the displacement when it melts, as physicitpeks pointed out.

"you added information unrelated to what he was saying, which was also *mostly* not wrong"
Show me ANYTHING about my statement that was incorrect, dear.

"This is in opposition to the example you used and what you were trying to infer, you were using the table as sea level."
Nope. There was nothing about my statement that is with odds against what I earlier said.

Do you want me to explain the concepts to you again, but in simpler terms?
 
Dec 12, 2019
7
1
35
"The OP was not wrong"
The OP was wrong. The amount below the surface does affect the displacement when it melts, as physicitpeks pointed out.

"you added information unrelated to what he was saying, which was also *mostly* not wrong"
Show me ANYTHING about my statement that was incorrect, dear.

"This is in opposition to the example you used and what you were trying to infer, you were using the table as sea level."
Nope. There was nothing about my statement that is with odds against what I earlier said.

Do you want me to explain the concepts to you again, but in simpler terms?
> does affect, not rise as you stated
> incorrect introducing weight displacement when the statement was volumetric
> the land it's sitting on is below sea level, argument for rise and table analogy invalid
 

sward

Administrator
Staff member
Nov 19, 2019
27
10
55
Hi folks, really great to see some good discussion here! While we welcome the challenging of scientific principles and encourage good debate, please remember to be civil with one another. Civility is the cornerstone of any healthy community. We want this forum to enable all to passionately express an opinion without violating our Community standards.

We've removed some off topic and less civil comments from this thread, looking forward to seeing this debate get back on track! :)
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

Latest posts